Comments on: the myth of the fiscal conservative

By: Nickster

Nickster — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:36:33 +0000

Hmm, how about “doodoo economics”? :)

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:38:53 +0000

Nick: It’s so clear to me now!

What would that idea be called? “Trickle forward” economics? I like it.

By: Nickster

Nickster — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:14:52 +0000

Oh, come on! Don’t you know that it takes years for an administration’s fiscal policy to have an effect on the economy?

For example, in G.H.W. Bush’s case, it took four years to have a positive effect, which lasted 8 years.

Clinton’s policies took 8 years to have a negative effect, one which is still with us to this day. Duh!

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:44:31 +0000

Brad: You’re absolutely right: a president’s economic policies don’t just include taxation. Military spending, energy policy, bank regulation, health care, infrastructure programs, borrowing, and other factors affect the economy as much or more.

The complete article states it better than I do, but my point is that the current administration emphasizes tax cuts in order to appear fiscally conservative, but their full economic policy isn’t designed to improve economic conditions overall.

By: Brad Fults

Brad Fults — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:19:20 +0000

I’d be careful about the last sentence. Correlation, causation, etc. It’s far more likely that poor economic policy, foreign entanglements and astronomical military spending were the primary culprits in the economic downturn.

That said, the gist seems true enough. I wouldn’t expect that more taxes on the $100K+ crowd would kill the economy.